What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board? I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said. There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else. Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer. This is a very ignorant statement. So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions. They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable. I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here. I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them. It has taken me years to see these things. Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary

7, huh? that shouldn't be too many and too hard for you to list here, IOW, yes, you are obligated that much. A few citations of what you allege would be nice as well.

Indeed. You have until Monday, June 27 @ 9:30am EDT to, at the very least, list these sources; you don't have to quote them, but it would be nice or you will be placed on post moderation.

This an official request.

That's not a problem Schultz. Mother has a broken hip and bowel cancer, generally in that order which is out of order in order of magnitude, so I am pretty busy right now but I'll do what I can over the weekend to pull them out of my library.

Do I need full citations or will Author/Title do?

Here we are. This is a short list of books that I know are used in real parishes to catechize real inquirers and real Orthodox faithful. I have read them all, among others, over the years and use them regularly as reference books. You will find an essentially similar faith in all of them taken as a whole but each one presents some widely variant details between and among themselves and also when weighed against what I find regularly on the Internet that is claimed to be universal Orthodox teaching and truth. Enjoy!:

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board? I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said. There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else. Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer. This is a very ignorant statement. So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions. They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable. I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here. I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them. It has taken me years to see these things. Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary

7, huh? that shouldn't be too many and too hard for you to list here, IOW, yes, you are obligated that much. A few citations of what you allege would be nice as well.

Indeed. You have until Monday, June 27 @ 9:30am EDT to, at the very least, list these sources; you don't have to quote them, but it would be nice or you will be placed on post moderation.

This an official request.

That's not a problem Schultz. Mother has a broken hip and bowel cancer, generally in that order which is out of order in order of magnitude, so I am pretty busy right now but I'll do what I can over the weekend to pull them out of my library.

Do I need full citations or will Author/Title do?

Here we are. This is a short list of books that I know are used in real parishes to catechize real inquirers and real Orthodox faithful. I have read them all, among others, over the years and use them regularly as reference books. You will find an essentially similar faith in all of them taken as a whole but each one presents some widely variant details between and among themselves and also when weighed against what I find regularly on the Internet that is claimed to be universal Orthodox teaching and truth. Enjoy!:

Thanks so much for the blessing. It's going to be one of her longer hotter summers...but we are all determined to get her back on her feet stronger than when she went down. She is an exceptionally healthy hearty and alert octogenarian so there is every possibility to hope for the best!!

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board? I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said. There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else. Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer. This is a very ignorant statement. So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions. They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable. I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here. I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them. It has taken me years to see these things. Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary

Teachings or essential doctrine? There is a difference. I could cite many books by Catholic writers that do not accurately reflect the magesterium. So what?

The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995 removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.

We can exchange such examples until the cows come home, but they prove nothing regarding the consistency of the teachings of Orthodox doctrine or, for that matter, those of your Church.

Seems you've gotten to my point ahead of me.

I can direct you to the documents containing the most cogent points of the deposit of faith in the Catholic Church. I can direct you to a curial office charged with the interpretation of doctrinal teachings. I can point you to documents that explain what doctrine is, and theology in Catholic terms, so that we can know what is taught as truth. These same documents demonstrate and state that Truth makes doctrine, rather than doctrine "making" truth. I can identify those members of the Catholic hierarchy who are charged with the magisterial teaching office: bishops, pastors and pope.

Where would I go to find such a synthesis for Orthodoxy?

You've got to have access to the hats! You know, like from Seinfeld, many years ago...the hats....

You know that we have no such thing as a 'magisterial teaching office' as defined by Rome. Frankly, with people like Hans Kung and others allowed to run amok for a generation, your 'office' must be run like "The Office" familiar to us in the states through the person of Steve Carell or to the Brits and the rest of the world through Ricky Gervais.

Seriously, I'll take our Orthodox teachers, through our clergy, monastics and Bishops as those charged by the Church with the protection and propagation of the Orthodox way! We just don't have an earthly persona or special title that claims a special and unique linkage to the Lord Himself.

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board? I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said. There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else. Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer. This is a very ignorant statement. So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions. They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable. I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here. I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them. It has taken me years to see these things. Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary

Teachings or essential doctrine? There is a difference. I could cite many books by Catholic writers that do not accurately reflect the magesterium. So what?

The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995 removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.

We can exchange such examples until the cows come home, but they prove nothing regarding the consistency of the teachings of Orthodox doctrine or, for that matter, those of your Church.

Seems you've gotten to my point ahead of me.

I can direct you to the documents containing the most cogent points of the deposit of faith in the Catholic Church. I can direct you to a curial office charged with the interpretation of doctrinal teachings. I can point you to documents that explain what doctrine is, and theology in Catholic terms, so that we can know what is taught as truth. These same documents demonstrate and state that Truth makes doctrine, rather than doctrine "making" truth. I can identify those members of the Catholic hierarchy who are charged with the magisterial teaching office: bishops, pastors and pope.

Where would I go to find such a synthesis for Orthodoxy?

You've got to have access to the hats! You know, like from Seinfeld, many years ago...the hats....

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board? I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said. There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else. Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer. This is a very ignorant statement. So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions. They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable. I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here. I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them. It has taken me years to see these things. Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary

Teachings or essential doctrine? There is a difference. I could cite many books by Catholic writers that do not accurately reflect the magesterium. So what?

The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995 removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.

We can exchange such examples until the cows come home, but they prove nothing regarding the consistency of the teachings of Orthodox doctrine or, for that matter, those of your Church.

Seems you've gotten to my point ahead of me.

I can direct you to the documents containing the most cogent points of the deposit of faith in the Catholic Church. I can direct you to a curial office charged with the interpretation of doctrinal teachings. I can point you to documents that explain what doctrine is, and theology in Catholic terms, so that we can know what is taught as truth. These same documents demonstrate and state that Truth makes doctrine, rather than doctrine "making" truth. I can identify those members of the Catholic hierarchy who are charged with the magisterial teaching office: bishops, pastors and pope.

Where would I go to find such a synthesis for Orthodoxy?

You've got to have access to the hats! You know, like from Seinfeld, many years ago...the hats....

You know that we have no such thing as a 'magisterial teaching office' as defined by Rome. Frankly, with people like Hans Kung and others allowed to run amok for a generation, your 'office' must be run like "The Office" familiar to us in the states through the person of Steve Carell or to the Brits and the rest of the world through Ricky Gervais.

Seriously, I'll take our Orthodox teachers, through our clergy, monastics and Bishops as those charged by the Church with the protection and propagation of the Orthodox way! We just don't have an earthly persona or special title that claims a special and unique linkage to the Lord Himself.

I'm no Brit, but Ricky Gervais' office is the only Office for me. That, or the one from Office Space.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board? I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said. There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else. Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer. This is a very ignorant statement. So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions. They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable. I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here. I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them. It has taken me years to see these things. Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary

7, huh? that shouldn't be too many and too hard for you to list here, IOW, yes, you are obligated that much. A few citations of what you allege would be nice as well.

Indeed. You have until Monday, June 27 @ 9:30am EDT to, at the very least, list these sources; you don't have to quote them, but it would be nice or you will be placed on post moderation.

This an official request.

That's not a problem Schultz. Mother has a broken hip and bowel cancer, generally in that order which is out of order in order of magnitude, so I am pretty busy right now but I'll do what I can over the weekend to pull them out of my library.

Lord have mercy!

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So what? If his is a "liberal" bishop and doesn't do anything about it, then IT'S ON HIS HEAD, and I would not want to be there when he is judged. The point is, that is what a layman is obliged to do when a priest is spouting heresy: report him to his bishop.

It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith.

Any proofs?

How about personal experience? I've met many nominal Orthodox, as well as unorthodox Orthodox. That's just the way it is. We have the same problem, of course.

As for jurisdictional doctrinal conflicts, it seems that the fact that you folks go through schisms over your different views about Catholicism is a real problem. A 1.2 billion-member Christian Church that claims the same apostolic lineage as you, and you still haven't even figured out how to receive an individual from this church.

I used to be an inquirer into Orthodoxy, and I was so dismayed that the crazy smorgasbord of jurisdictions all had enormous differences about what I was. Unbaptized pagan, or "brother" Christian, or what? I spent long hours munching Toll House cookies over these questions.

The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995 removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.

No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.

It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith.

Any proofs?

How about personal experience? I've met many nominal Orthodox, as well as unorthodox Orthodox. That's just the way it is. We have the same problem, of course.

Quote

As for jurisdictional doctrinal conflicts, it seems that the fact that you folks go through schisms over your different views about Catholicism is a real problem. A 1.2 billion-member Christian Church that claims the same apostolic lineage as you, and you still haven't even figured out how to receive an individual from this church.

These are pastoral things, not doctrinal.

Opinions of single believers are not "faith of different jurisdictions".

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.

Why like 6 posts one after another?

You know full well that the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles are not teaching the same thing. Sometimes even dogmatic issues are not being taught in accordance with Catholicism's point of reference, Rome. I think it's your own insecurity that the Catholic Church is loosing all of those uniform beliefs that used to exist, up until 50 years ago, that you spout off idiocy in respect to your supposed "experience". Schisms over what Orthodox people think about Catholicism? Really? We don't care what Rome does so why does Rome care what we do? (We all know the answer). Fact is, these are all just unsupported attacks that lets you take your aim off of yourselves and aim it on us.

You know why there are all these jurisdictions in America, because America is a unique situation and these particular churches came from their respective countries. That's it. No doctrinal differences nor different beliefs. Talk about taking something so simple and pretending its a bombshell.

No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.

Why like 6 posts one after another?

You know full well that the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles are not teaching the same thing. Sometimes even dogmatic issues are not being taught in accordance with Catholicism's point of reference, Rome. I think it's your own insecurity that the Catholic Church is loosing all of those uniform beliefs that used to exist, up until 50 years ago, that you spout off idiocy in respect to your supposed "experience". Schisms over what Orthodox people think about Catholicism? Really? We don't care what Rome does so why does Rome care what we do? (We all know the answer). Fact is, these are all just unsupported attacks that lets you take your aim off of yourselves and aim it on us.

You know why there are all these jurisdictions in America, because America is a unique situation and these particular churches came from their respective countries. That's it. No doctrinal differences nor different beliefs. Talk about taking something so simple and pretending its a bombshell.

I disagree and I just posted 11 Orthodox texts in another thread which demonstrate Lubeltri's point quite clearly...

No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.

Why like 6 posts one after another?

You know full well that the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles are not teaching the same thing. Sometimes even dogmatic issues are not being taught in accordance with Catholicism's point of reference, Rome. I think it's your own insecurity that the Catholic Church is loosing all of those uniform beliefs that used to exist, up until 50 years ago, that you spout off idiocy in respect to your supposed "experience". Schisms over what Orthodox people think about Catholicism? Really? We don't care what Rome does so why does Rome care what we do? (We all know the answer). Fact is, these are all just unsupported attacks that lets you take your aim off of yourselves and aim it on us.

You know why there are all these jurisdictions in America, because America is a unique situation and these particular churches came from their respective countries. That's it. No doctrinal differences nor different beliefs. Talk about taking something so simple and pretending its a bombshell.

I disagree and I just posted 11 Orthodox texts in another thread which demonstrate Lubeltri's point quite clearly...

So you claim, I'll be getting to that.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.

Why like 6 posts one after another?

You know full well that the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles are not teaching the same thing. Sometimes even dogmatic issues are not being taught in accordance with Catholicism's point of reference, Rome. I think it's your own insecurity that the Catholic Church is loosing all of those uniform beliefs that used to exist, up until 50 years ago, that you spout off idiocy in respect to your supposed "experience". Schisms over what Orthodox people think about Catholicism? Really? We don't care what Rome does so why does Rome care what we do? (We all know the answer). Fact is, these are all just unsupported attacks that lets you take your aim off of yourselves and aim it on us.

You know why there are all these jurisdictions in America, because America is a unique situation and these particular churches came from their respective countries. That's it. No doctrinal differences nor different beliefs. Talk about taking something so simple and pretending its a bombshell.

I disagree and I just posted 11 Orthodox texts in another thread which demonstrate Lubeltri's point quite clearly...

So you claim, I'll be getting to that.

Yes indeed. You'll pick nits with Catholics using bad cut-n-paste history and then minimize ALL of the variations in Orthodoxy...down to zero.

As for jurisdictional doctrinal conflicts, it seems that the fact that you folks go through schisms over your different views about Catholicism is a real problem. A 1.2 billion-member Christian Church that claims the same apostolic lineage as you, and you still haven't even figured out how to receive an individual from this church.

We figured out long ago "one size fits all," the modus vivendi of the Vatican, doesn't work.

"Claims" is the opperative word. Canterbury claims the same apostolic lineage as you: does your supreme pontiff recognize their claim? He just Canterbury's former bishop of London "conditionally" without ordination to your deaconate (and priesthood?), while taking his fellow Anglican bishops as layman and (re)ordained them in the first three orders of your priesthood. Is it that he hasn't even figured out how to receive an individual from that "same apostolic lineage" as you. In fact, you take our priests and bishops that apostacize without reordaining them. The Anglicans claim that we all have the same lineage, has your "magisterium" not figured out how to receive from this Church?

We have had only three schisms even remotely worth mentioning (unlike the spectacular ones you all have-the Great Western Schism, the Reformation, the Old Catholics, etc.):the Old Ritualist and "Living Church" had no reference to the Vatican at all, and in the Old Calendarist schism the Vatican plays only the role of boogey man that the Old Calendarists accuse us "world Orthodox" (i.e. the ones that the Vatican recognizes as the Orthodox) of being in league with. They are "schisms over different views about Catholicism," but they have nothing to do with the Vatican. Unlike you Ultramontanists, the Vatican isn't in the center of our universe.

I used to be an inquirer into Orthodoxy, and I was so dismayed that the crazy smorgasbord of jurisdictions all had enormous differences about what I was. Unbaptized pagan, or "brother" Christian, or what? I spent long hours munching Toll House cookies over these questions.

and evidently choked on them.

given the grand indulgence system built up in grand Dantesque fashion, held firmly by many of those in your ecclesiastical organization alongside those in your same ecclesiastical community who in the spirit of Vatican II deny the existence of purgatory, let alone hell, you would have been better served with eye tweezers.

Toll houses. A sure sign you are grasping as straws. I was Orthodox for years before I'd ever heard of them. Your Sedevantist-Traditionalist-Reformer-Liberation Theology smorgasbord is every day and everywhere spread out.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.

Why like 6 posts one after another?

You know full well that the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles are not teaching the same thing. Sometimes even dogmatic issues are not being taught in accordance with Catholicism's point of reference, Rome. I think it's your own insecurity that the Catholic Church is loosing all of those uniform beliefs that used to exist, up until 50 years ago, that you spout off idiocy in respect to your supposed "experience". Schisms over what Orthodox people think about Catholicism? Really? We don't care what Rome does so why does Rome care what we do? (We all know the answer). Fact is, these are all just unsupported attacks that lets you take your aim off of yourselves and aim it on us.

You know why there are all these jurisdictions in America, because America is a unique situation and these particular churches came from their respective countries. That's it. No doctrinal differences nor different beliefs. Talk about taking something so simple and pretending its a bombshell.

I disagree and I just posted 11 Orthodox texts in another thread which demonstrate Lubeltri's point quite clearly...

So you claim, I'll be getting to that.

Yes indeed. You'll pick nits with Catholics using bad cut-n-paste history and then minimize ALL of the variations in Orthodoxy...down to zero.

That's how ya be doin' it, Professor.

with all your obsession with toll houses, I have to bow to your expertise in picking nits with Catholics.

search the "EP Bashing" tags, and anyone can see how much I "minimize ALL of the variations in Orthodoxy" LOL.

zero grade for you

« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 03:58:40 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think he would do just as well to talk to some orthodox Catholic priests right where he lives.

since for you "Ultramontanist" means "orthodox," same thing (except a Catholic priest would be an Orthodox one).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995 removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.

No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.

You are correct, I misread the first few lines of an article about Kung. He was stripped of his title as a professor of Catholic Theology in 1979. That being said, some fifteen years passed from the first publication in English of his Doctoral dissertation through the revocation of his license, a period in which he was quite controversial and outspoken with respect to his opinions about the papacy and the post Vatican 2 church.

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing. Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one. This has always been the case with the RCC. Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries. In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so). Vatican II changed all that. Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith. This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a more "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen). Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic. Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be. Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome. Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future.

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith.

Any proofs?

How about personal experience? I've met many nominal Orthodox, as well as unorthodox Orthodox. That's just the way it is. We have the same problem, of course.

Quote

As for jurisdictional doctrinal conflicts, it seems that the fact that you folks go through schisms over your different views about Catholicism is a real problem. A 1.2 billion-member Christian Church that claims the same apostolic lineage as you, and you still haven't even figured out how to receive an individual from this church.

These are pastoral things, not doctrinal.

Opinions of single believers are not "faith of different jurisdictions".

Well schisms over "pastoral" things and even more petty things is a terrible indictment.

As for reception and baptism, that's hardly pastoral, I think. It's ecclesiological.

No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.

Why like 6 posts one after another?

You know full well that the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles are not teaching the same thing. Sometimes even dogmatic issues are not being taught in accordance with Catholicism's point of reference, Rome. I think it's your own insecurity that the Catholic Church is loosing all of those uniform beliefs that used to exist, up until 50 years ago, that you spout off idiocy in respect to your supposed "experience". Schisms over what Orthodox people think about Catholicism? Really? We don't care what Rome does so why does Rome care what we do? (We all know the answer). Fact is, these are all just unsupported attacks that lets you take your aim off of yourselves and aim it on us.

You know why there are all these jurisdictions in America, because America is a unique situation and these particular churches came from their respective countries. That's it. No doctrinal differences nor different beliefs. Talk about taking something so simple and pretending its a bombshell.

Talk about defensive. I have plenty of personal experience--I was an inquirer, remember? And the "Orthodoxy" I witnessed was hardly the kind I expected from my reading of Met. Kallistos and your own EP (considered by a not-insignificant number of your people as a heretic and apostate precisely because of his approach to Catholics!).

It was a definite turnoff, and it made me realize that your communion(s) are just in as bad a shape as Catholicism. The grass is not greener, all smugness on this forum aside.

I think he would do just as well to talk to some orthodox Catholic priests right where he lives.

since for you "Ultramontanist" means "orthodox," same thing (except a Catholic priest would be an Orthodox one).

Of course I'm NOT an ultramontanist. If you are going to repeatedly sling playground taunts, why not just take your ball and run along home? You're doing such a fantastic job blindsiding me with such charity that I will be willing to consider Eastern Orthodoxy.

The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995 removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.

No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.

You are correct, I misread the first few lines of an article about Kung. He was stripped of his title as a professor of Catholic Theology in 1979. That being said, some fifteen years passed from the first publication in English of his Doctoral dissertation through the revocation of his license, a period in which he was quite controversial and outspoken with respect to his opinions about the papacy and the post Vatican 2 church.

Indeed, contrary to conventional EO wisdom the Holy See is not some shadowy tyrannical power with its tentacles all over the place. Only the most notorious usually get punished, and not quickly. It took Rome over a decade to get rid of that awful bishop in Australia.

You know why there are all these jurisdictions in America, because America is a unique situation and these particular churches came from their respective countries. That's it. No doctrinal differences nor different beliefs.

Are you sure that there are no different beliefs? For example, on the importance of the Julian calendar, and for another, whether women are to wear headcovering in Church? Some Orthodox have the belief that in accordance with Holy Scripture, woman are to wear headcovering in Church, while others have a different belief and say it is optional.

You know why there are all these jurisdictions in America, because America is a unique situation and these particular churches came from their respective countries. That's it. No doctrinal differences nor different beliefs.

Are you sure that there are no different beliefs? For example, on the importance of the Julian calendar, and for another, whether women are to wear headcovering in Church? Some Orthodox have the belief that in accordance with Holy Scripture, woman are to wear headcovering in Church, while others have a different belief and say it is optional.

I think those have to do more with the conservative/ liberal divide that plague so many churches and not any actual theological differences. Also the calendar issue can be dogmatic with some jurisdictions, such as the Old Calendar Greeks or ROCOR, but it can just be a custom like as with the Ukrainians and Serbs.

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing. Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one. This has always been the case with the RCC. Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries. In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so). Vatican II changed all that. Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith. This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a more "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen). Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic. Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be. Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome. Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future.

I don't have time to point out all the errors of fact and interpretation in this paragraph, so a comment shall have to suffice.

And this is why laity are not involved in "developing [read: altering] the faith". Or groups of priests or bishops for that matter. Or even the Pope himself.

The funny thing about the heresy of Modernism is that it doesn't claim to restore the "true" ancient teaching like the old heresies all claimed. Instead it proclaims a "brave new world" where the apostolic teaching has "evolved" or been "updated" to meet "modern needs". It's remarkable when you think of the massive revolution in the West and in Catholicism in the 20th century that the Modernists may have brought on crisis and catastrophe, but they didn't prevail, and their influence is steadily on the wane in the Catholic Church even as the are triumphant in outside society. This increasing contrast between the culture and the church can only be good for the church, as only the most committed members, those most hungry for real holiness, will remain.

It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith.

Any proofs?

How about personal experience? I've met many nominal Orthodox, as well as unorthodox Orthodox. That's just the way it is. We have the same problem, of course.

Quote

As for jurisdictional doctrinal conflicts, it seems that the fact that you folks go through schisms over your different views about Catholicism is a real problem. A 1.2 billion-member Christian Church that claims the same apostolic lineage as you, and you still haven't even figured out how to receive an individual from this church.

These are pastoral things, not doctrinal.

Opinions of single believers are not "faith of different jurisdictions".

Well schisms over "pastoral" things and even more petty things is a terrible indictment.

As for reception and baptism, that's hardly pastoral, I think. It's ecclesiological.

Differing views of Catholics is definitely a major issue. As far as it being a matter of schism ... are you referring to the GOC?

You're doing such a fantastic job blindsiding me with such charity that I will be willing to consider Eastern Orthodoxy.

Mark 4:12

« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 12:01:59 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995 removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.

No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.

You are correct, I misread the first few lines of an article about Kung. He was stripped of his title as a professor of Catholic Theology in 1979. That being said, some fifteen years passed from the first publication in English of his Doctoral dissertation through the revocation of his license, a period in which he was quite controversial and outspoken with respect to his opinions about the papacy and the post Vatican 2 church.

Indeed, contrary to conventional EO wisdom the Holy See is not some shadowy tyrannical power with its tentacles all over the place. Only the most notorious usually get punished, and not quickly. It took Rome over a decade to get rid of that awful bishop in Australia.

John Hepworth?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith.

Any proofs?

How about personal experience? I've met many nominal Orthodox, as well as unorthodox Orthodox. That's just the way it is. We have the same problem, of course.

Quote

As for jurisdictional doctrinal conflicts, it seems that the fact that you folks go through schisms over your different views about Catholicism is a real problem. A 1.2 billion-member Christian Church that claims the same apostolic lineage as you, and you still haven't even figured out how to receive an individual from this church.

These are pastoral things, not doctrinal.

Opinions of single believers are not "faith of different jurisdictions".

Well schisms over "pastoral" things and even more petty things is a terrible indictment.

As for reception and baptism, that's hardly pastoral, I think. It's ecclesiological.

Then you failed Economia 101.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing. Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one. This has always been the case with the RCC. Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries. In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so). Vatican II changed all that. Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith. This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a More "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen). Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic. Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be. Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome. Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future.

I don't have time to point out all the errors of fact and interpretation in this paragraph, so a comment shall have to suffice.

And this is why laity are not involved in "developing [read: altering] the faith". Or groups of priests or bishops for that matter. Or even the Pope himself.

The funny thing about the heresy of Modernism is that it doesn't claim to restore the "true" ancient teaching like the old heresies all claimed. Instead it proclaims a "brave new world" where the apostolic teaching has "evolved" or been "updated" to meet "modern needs". It's remarkable when you think of the massive revolution in the West and in Catholicism in the 20Th century that the Modernists may have brought on crisis and catastrophe, but they didn't prevail, and their influence is steadily on the wane in the Catholic Church even as the are triumphant in outside society. This increasing contrast between the culture and the church can only be good for the church, as only the most committed members, those most hungry for real holiness, will remain.

If I had a dollar for every time some smug traditionalist Catholic has given me that line "I don't have the time to point out all the errors of" on one of my commentaries then I'd surely be another Rockefeller right now.

Yes, please try to repudiate my comments by attempting to claim how the Vatican Council never really intended to change Catholicism. It was just all misinterpreted by misguided clergy and laymen. In fact Vatican II intended to change nothing. It actually was supposed to make the RCC even more traditional and anti modern then it was before the Council. If you believe all that spiel, then I've gotta couple bridges I can sell you for decent price.

Wetter you or any other know it all traditionalist likes to admit it, the RCC has changed over the past fifty years and she will continue to change and develop as she always has done. It is you traditionalsit who are the true heretics for repudiating the universal authority of the Pope and the bishops to make any changes to the faith. You repudiate Pastor Aeternus and the divine authority for binding and loosing that the Pope and his Church posses. You feel free to either disregard or outrightly preach against the changes in the Church and wish to turn back the clock and bring us back kicking and screaming into the dark ages. Well, let me tell you "it ain't gonna happen any time soon". We more moderate minded RC's are not going to let your little disgruntled minority of young fogies and sexually frustrated, neo fascist clergy bring us back there. We have changed as a Church and you are just going to have to accept it as so or find yourself another religion to plague with your anti modern drivel.

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.

These innovations alone were supposed to represent the true spirit of the Council, and starting from and in conformity with them, it would be possible to move ahead. Precisely because the texts would only imperfectly reflect the true spirit of the Council and its newness, it would be necessary to go courageously beyond the texts and make room for the newness in which the Council's deepest intention would be expressed, even if it were still vague.

In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit. In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim.The nature of a Council as such is therefore basically misunderstood. In this way, it is considered as a sort of constituent that eliminates an old constitution and creates a new one. However, the Constituent Assembly needs a mandator and then confirmation by the mandator, in other words, the people the constitution must serve. The Fathers had no such mandate and no one had ever given them one; nor could anyone have given them one because the essential constitution of the Church comes from the Lord and was given to us so that we might attain eternal life and, starting from this perspective, be able to illuminate life in time and time itself. . . .

Here I shall cite only John XXIII's well-known words, which unequivocally express this hermeneutic when he says that the Council wishes "to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion". And he continues: "Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us...". It is necessary that "adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness..." be presented in "faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another...", retaining the same meaning and message.

As Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Holy Office, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith:

"The more vigorously the papacy was displayed, the more the question came up of about the extent and limits of this authority, which, of course, as such had never been considered. After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not 'manufactured' by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity."

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing. Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one. This has always been the case with the RCC. Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries. In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so). Vatican II changed all that. Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith. This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a more "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen). Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic. Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be. Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome. Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future.

I don't have time to point out all the errors of fact and interpretation in this paragraph, so a comment shall have to suffice.

And this is why laity are not involved in "developing [read: altering] the faith". Or groups of priests or bishops for that matter. Or even the Pope himself.

The funny thing about the heresy of Modernism is that it doesn't claim to restore the "true" ancient teaching like the old heresies all claimed. Instead it proclaims a "brave new world" where the apostolic teaching has "evolved" or been "updated" to meet "modern needs". It's remarkable when you think of the massive revolution in the West and in Catholicism in the 20th century that the Modernists may have brought on crisis and catastrophe, but they didn't prevail, and their influence is steadily on the wane in the Catholic Church even as the are triumphant in outside society. This increasing contrast between the culture and the church can only be good for the church, as only the most committed members, those most hungry for real holiness, will remain.

BTW, hasn't the RC teaching on marriage annulments evolved and been updated to meet the modern needs of a cover for Church approved divorce? How else do you explain the fact that in the USA, about 80 years ago, there were about 10 marriage annulments per year, but in some recent years, it has run higher than 50,000 per year in the USA?

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing. Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one. This has always been the case with the RCC. Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries. In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so). Vatican II changed all that. Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith. This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a more "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen). Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic. Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be. Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome. Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future.

I don't have time to point out all the errors of fact and interpretation in this paragraph, so a comment shall have to suffice.

And this is why laity are not involved in "developing [read: altering] the faith". Or groups of priests or bishops for that matter. Or even the Pope himself.

The funny thing about the heresy of Modernism is that it doesn't claim to restore the "true" ancient teaching like the old heresies all claimed. Instead it proclaims a "brave new world" where the apostolic teaching has "evolved" or been "updated" to meet "modern needs". It's remarkable when you think of the massive revolution in the West and in Catholicism in the 20th century that the Modernists may have brought on crisis and catastrophe, but they didn't prevail, and their influence is steadily on the wane in the Catholic Church even as the are triumphant in outside society. This increasing contrast between the culture and the church can only be good for the church, as only the most committed members, those most hungry for real holiness, will remain.

BTW, hasn't the RC teaching on marriage annulments evolved and been updated to meet the modern needs of a cover for Church approved divorce? How else do you explain the fact that in the USA, about 80 years ago, there were about 10 marriage annulments per year, but in some recent years, it has run higher than 50,000 per year in the USA?

Come on now. You're looking at the practice in one country and claiming that the universal Catholic teaching has been changed? You've got to be kidding me.

Of course the teaching hasn't changed at all.

How do I explain it? Either abuses at the tribunal level, or people's massive ignorance or rejection of the requirements for a valid Catholic, sacramental marriage. Both may very well be true, and even the Pope said as much in his interview published in book form last fall.

The divorce culture in which we live and the massive failure of catechesis, especially in the United States, have taken their toll. And if there were EVER a time to give up the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, it would be now. But it hasn't been and won't.

You want a real Ultramontanist? Look at Robb. He thinks he is more Catholic than Pope Benedict XVI and Blessed Pope John XXIII. All hail Pope Robb I!

Well I'm currently out of work and wouldn't mind the job (Plus living in Rome)

I should point out that I am in no way a liberal or consider myself sympathetic towards the modernist slant in the RCC. I would best describe myself as a moderate, run of the mill Catholic with some conservative leanings. I certainly do approve of BXVI's hermeneutic of Continuity and his attempt to blend the old and new ways together for the benefit of the Church. I also support the greater involvement of the laity in the RCC as proscribed by Vatican II. Although some who go too far with their dissent may cast a dark cloud over the movement, the laity certainly should have a role in helping the Church with her mission.

I still believe that some of the changes, such as vernacular liturgy and easier annulments were a great blessings on the Church and helped to make the the RCC better able to gain the trust and devotion of her people. My own mother was a benefactor of an annulment which allowed for her to return to the sacramnets after 15 years absense. How many others have had the same blessing due to the easier annulment process that was streamlined after the Council? This annulment situation, the reconcilling of those who were outside the Church through her powers of economia is just such a great thing. Yet the traditionalist would seem to have us stop this process and declare all post Vatican II annulments invalid. I don't think that would go over too well with many people (My family included).

« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 03:37:12 AM by Robb »

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing. Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one. This has always been the case with the RCC. Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries. In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so). Vatican II changed all that. Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith. This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a more "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen). Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic. Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be. Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome. Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future.

I don't have time to point out all the errors of fact and interpretation in this paragraph, so a comment shall have to suffice.

And this is why laity are not involved in "developing [read: altering] the faith". Or groups of priests or bishops for that matter. Or even the Pope himself.

The funny thing about the heresy of Modernism is that it doesn't claim to restore the "true" ancient teaching like the old heresies all claimed. Instead it proclaims a "brave new world" where the apostolic teaching has "evolved" or been "updated" to meet "modern needs". It's remarkable when you think of the massive revolution in the West and in Catholicism in the 20th century that the Modernists may have brought on crisis and catastrophe, but they didn't prevail, and their influence is steadily on the wane in the Catholic Church even as the are triumphant in outside society. This increasing contrast between the culture and the church can only be good for the church, as only the most committed members, those most hungry for real holiness, will remain.

BTW, hasn't the RC teaching on marriage annulments evolved and been updated to meet the modern needs of a cover for Church approved divorce? How else do you explain the fact that in the USA, about 80 years ago, there were about 10 marriage annulments per year, but in some recent years, it has run higher than 50,000 per year in the USA?

Come on now. You're looking at the practice in one country and claiming that the universal Catholic teaching has been changed? You've got to be kidding me.

Of course the teaching hasn't changed at all.

How do I explain it? Either abuses at the tribunal level, or people's massive ignorance or rejection of the requirements for a valid Catholic, sacramental marriage. Both may very well be true, and even the Pope said as much in his interview published in book form last fall.

The divorce culture in which we live and the massive failure of catechesis, especially in the United States, have taken their toll. And if there were EVER a time to give up the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, it would be now. But it hasn't been and won't.

For the Catholic Church to tell someone after twenty years of marriage, and four children, that they really were not married at all, because at the time of the wedding ceremony twenty years ago, there was some small defect of consent, is really an extremely serious change in Catholic teaching. The annulment fiasco is basically a coverup to hide the fact that the Catholic Church in the USA is handing out Church approved divorces. Consider this: There never would have been any question of the marriage being invalid if the husband had not gained a few extra pounds of weight (basically due to the wife’s cooking anyway) and the wife had not found herself a new slimmer and younger boyfriend who was able to satisfy her insatiable and lustful appetite for sex. So the whole annulment fiasco is one big charade to cover the fact that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on the acceptability of divorce. The teaching on what are the valid grounds for annulling a marriage has changed severely. Eighty years ago, marriage annulments were allowed when it was found and proven that the other partner had been previously married or in the case of a medically substantiated claim of total male impotence. And basically, that was it. Today, almost any Catholic can get a marriage annulment for the most trivial of reasons. You can always find some small difficulty in any marriage and blow it up way out of proportion so that in the end, the Catholic marriage tribunal will find for the annulment. And BTW, when a marriage annulment is granted, it is recognised throughout the entire Catholic world, and its validity is not restricted to the USA or the locality in which it was granted.

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing. Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one. This has always been the case with the RCC. Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries. In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so). Vatican II changed all that. Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith. This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a more "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen). Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic. Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be. Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome. Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future.

I don't have time to point out all the errors of fact and interpretation in this paragraph, so a comment shall have to suffice.

And this is why laity are not involved in "developing [read: altering] the faith". Or groups of priests or bishops for that matter. Or even the Pope himself.

The funny thing about the heresy of Modernism is that it doesn't claim to restore the "true" ancient teaching like the old heresies all claimed. Instead it proclaims a "brave new world" where the apostolic teaching has "evolved" or been "updated" to meet "modern needs". It's remarkable when you think of the massive revolution in the West and in Catholicism in the 20th century that the Modernists may have brought on crisis and catastrophe, but they didn't prevail, and their influence is steadily on the wane in the Catholic Church even as the are triumphant in outside society. This increasing contrast between the culture and the church can only be good for the church, as only the most committed members, those most hungry for real holiness, will remain.

BTW, hasn't the RC teaching on marriage annulments evolved and been updated to meet the modern needs of a cover for Church approved divorce? How else do you explain the fact that in the USA, about 80 years ago, there were about 10 marriage annulments per year, but in some recent years, it has run higher than 50,000 per year in the USA?

Yes, the RCC now factors in conditions relating to marriage which she previously didn't (Such as mental stability and actual loss of love between partners). I think the present annulment situation in the RCC is a great tool for reconcilliation.

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert